Good in MRQ

[andakitty]

As the subject title says. Much is being said here about what is bad about MRQ, or broken, or just plain wrong, or how it's not like previous versions of RQ. But what do you like about it? I like the character generation, much about the skill system, the bestiary (very much, I am now looking forward to the Monster book more than anything else), and the magic implementation more than anything else. Unfortunately I have too many problems with the game too use it as is, right out of the book. However, I will use enough of it to get my money out of it. I will integrate the parts I like with Stormbringer and call it StormQuest or something like that, I suppose.

Anyway, what's GOOD about the game, to y'all?

 

[iamtim]

Just out of curiosity, what problems do you have with it?

 

[Ravage]

I like the incorporation of Runes personnally and gaining powers from them - a dmaned nice touch. I really enjoyed that when HW came out and the spells and cults all had runes and finally made them part of the world, but this ruen powers really works for me too!

Infact, I'd "backflow" this idea into RQ2/3 and even HW/HQ I like it so much!

Although you've probably not got the RQ Companion, the sorcery made me want to try it out unlike RQ3 ever did. And I liked the sea-going ships and spirit combat wasnt bad.

But hey, I think everyones looking lovingly at the Glorantha book....

 

[Rurik]

I like the incorporation of Runes personnally and gaining powers from them - a dmaned nice touch. I really enjoyed that when HW came out and the spells and cults all had runes and finally made them part of the world, but this ruen powers really works for me too!

Infact, I'd "backflow" this idea into RQ2/3 and even HW/HQ I like it so much!

Although you've probably not got the RQ Companion, the sorcery made me want to try it out unlike RQ3 ever did. And I liked the sea-going ships and spirit combat wasnt bad.

But hey, I think everyones looking lovingly at the Glorantha book....

Yeah, Rune Integration pretty much rocks. I agree it will be retrofitted to earlier RQ versions if I run them again.

I'll should have my book today and get a better feel for the system as a whole.

 

[Urox]

Edited for correct quotation -- sorry Rurik!

Infact, I'd "backflow" [Rune integration] into RQ2/3 and even HW/HQ I like it so much!

This is a feature I wouldn't bring forward into the Third Age, but is a nice thing to set the Second Age apart. I wonder if the Runes will be part of the Second Age book, of if they just arbitrary rules. I recall Greg Stafford saying he disliked some of the new MQ rules -- Rune integration jumped out as one of the possibilities...

And I liked the sea-going ships...

Do they still have those giant stone dwarf battleships?

 

[Enpeze]

I like the most that RQ is a topic again to speak about. It has been "dead" long time. If I look at rpg.net or other forums you can see many threads about RQ. this rocks.

Another thing I like is that there is much additional material, more settings, OGL, support in S&P etc.

The first time young players can play the same (or at least a similar) game than we played 20 years ago and have their own RQ experiences. So many of us can maybe speak with their nephew or children not only about some "exalted demigods" or "D&D dungeoncrawling". They can speak with them about runelords or if the thunderbolt spell is too cheap. This I like too.

 

[Rurik]

Infact, I'd "backflow" [Rune integration] into RQ2/3 and even HW/HQ I like it so much!

This is a feature I wouldn't bring forward into the Third Age, but is a nice thing to set the Second Age apart. I wonder if the Runes will be part of the Second Age book, of if they just arbitrary rules. I recall Greg Stafford saying he disliked some of the new MQ rules -- Rune integration jumped out as one of the possibilities...

And I liked the sea-going ships...

Do they still have those giant stone dwarf battleships?

Urox, those are Ravager quotes, not mine.

Damn Storm Gods.

I think Rune Integration is pretty much Perrins' (sole?) contribution btw.

 

[iamtim]

I know I'll probably take heat for this, but I really like the Attack of Opportunity-style Free Attacks, and the Riposte. That's some cool shit.

 

[bluejay]

Generally I like most of the new rules. I like the clarifications with how groups perform skill tests for instance.

I like a lot about the combat system and the fact that it has a lot of options, each with their own benefits.

The Legendary Abilities look good so far. I'd like to see them in play.

Personally I've found that in other games (notably Mutants and Masterminds) other players have posted up example characters and examples of play (usually combats) which really highlight the excellent features of the game. I would suggest something similar on this board would: -

A) Whet the appetites of those who are interested but still haven't bought the game.

B) Conclusively tie down the combat and rules system with solid examples - for a system that was supposed to prevent long drawn-out opposed tests, it seems to have generated an inordinately long opposed Influence test on at least two boards... :wink:

C) Be a more productive exercise for the regular posters.

I don't have time at the moment but perhaps I'll start statting up some guys and testing out the system next week. Y'know one thing that really excited me about the game was that Matthew mentioned they'd used the Revenge of the Sith swordfights as models for the combat system. Perhaps I'll get a chance to stat up Obi-Wan vs General Greivous... (now there's a hit location table!!!)

 

[andakitty]

iamtim, I am wondering about the good and here you ask about my problems with it, but anyway. Primarily the weapon values look off to me. 2D8 for a longbow, many 1h weapons nerfed. Too much to casually houserule. I don't care for the chart dependency in combat, the halving rule, the lack of resistance table, no stat rolls, criticals not harsh enough for me (my previous post about criticals was meant as a joke, not THAT harsh). Overall I don't feel like I can say 'alright, everybody, now we are going to play a game of RQ, you all need a rulebook', have everybody pick one up, and use it for the primary body of rules without all sorts of hitches. On top of that, like others here, I already have a set of houserules derived mostly from BRP games that I am pretty happy with and know works well. All that said, MRP is a pretty good semi-BRP variant with some very tasty bits, some of which will definitely see their way to my table even though I don't see using it as is.

 

[Rurik]

iamtim, I am wondering about the good and here you ask about my problems with it, but anyway. Primarily the weapon values look off to me. 2D8 for a longbow, many 1h weapons nerfed. Too much to casually houserule. I don't care for the chart dependency in combat, the halving rule, the lack of resistance table, no stat rolls, criticals not harsh enough for me (my previous post about criticals was meant as a joke, not THAT harsh). Overall I don't feel like I can say 'alright, everybody, now we are going to play a game of RQ, you all need a rulebook', have everybody pick one up, and use it for the primary body of rules without all sorts of hitches. On top of that, like others here, I already have a set of houserules derived mostly from BRP games that I am pretty happy with and know works well. All that said, MRP is a pretty good semi-BRP variant with some very tasty bits, some of which will definitely see their way to my table even though I don't see using it as is.

You should try not being so negative all the time.

 

[andakitty]

Like I said before, I was trying to be positive before. It's an effort for me. I very much wanted a game I would feel comfortable with 'out of the box'. This isn't it, but I do feel many here have been too hard on the game previously, based on the previews. And the statistical anomaly that has been so universally accepted still doesn't feel right to me, even though I see no point in conducting the game with the charts and halving rule, etc. To make peace, I no longer feel that bluejay, sarahnewton, and others are trying to trash the game. I have to wonder if too much has been taken into account, or too little, or just not in the right sequence, or what. Whatever. It doesn't matter to me now, because I don't feel the system models combat as well as other games anyway. Oops. I should say it doesn't look to be as much fun. Mongoose made a valiant attempt at creating a simple, playable game and just went too far in the wrong direction, IMO. I'd say the upcoming BRP compilation might be more up my alley, meanwhile I will use MRQ as best I can, and lend more support to the line. I want that Monster book in particular, 'cause I love that part of MRQ. And also Lankhmar, at the very least.

 

[Rurik]

Like I said before, I was trying to be positive before. It's an effort for me. I very much wanted a game I would feel comfortable with 'out of the box'. This isn't it, but I do feel many here have been too hard on the game previously, based on the previews. And the statistical anomaly that has been so universally accepted still doesn't feel right to me, even though I see no point in conducting the game with the charts and halving rule, etc. To make peace, I no longer feel that bluejay, sarahnewton, and others are trying to trash the game. I have to wonder if too much has been taken into account, or too little, or just not in the right sequence, or what. Whatever. It doesn't matter to me now, because I don't feel the system models combat as well as other games anyway. Oops. I should say it doesn't look to be as much fun. Mongoose made a valiant attempt at creating a simple, playable game and just went too far in the wrong direction, IMO. I'd say the upcoming BRP compilation might be more up my alley, meanwhile I will use MRQ as best I can, and lend more support to the line. I want that Monster book in particular, 'cause I love that part of MRQ. And also Lankhmar, at the very least.

:shock:

 

[andakitty]

So, you thought I was a simple soul? :roll:

 

[iamtim]

I think Rurik was joking with his line about being too serious alla time, and you took it entirely too seriously.

 

[andakitty]

Yes, I know. But having been somewhat grumpy around here of late, I thought at least a little clarification of my position in order.

 

[bluejay]

To make peace, I no longer feel that bluejay, sarahnewton, and others are trying to trash the game.

Don't worry mate, I never thought you did. I have to say I feel a little awkward in how I seem to have ended up positioned on these boards. Given that intent is always difficult to understand in postings I'm sure to many people I looked like the smug jackass with his arms folded saying 'ha, wrong, told you so.' I really didn't intend to be that guy!

I'm sure we'll all have plenty of fun in the future coming up with lots of good stuff for MRQ!

 

[andakitty]

I realize that from some of your recent posts.

 

[iamtim]

I'm sure to many people I looked like the smug jackass with his arms folded saying 'ha, wrong, told you so.'

I *never* said you had your arms folded.

Just kidding.

The math, or your position on it, was never my issue. My question was whether or not it would be a big issue in play.

Which, of course, still remains to be seen.

 

[bluejay]

I've been thinking about this Iamtim, and I'm wondering if it will be a visible issue in play.

The statistics involved aren't intuitive and wouldn't jump out at most players immediately.

Where you might see an issue is a situation where your thief is kicking ass with a Stealth of 98% but finds himself being seen/caught a lot more regularly once he reaches 101% and be surprised at how often he is failing now.

For instance (and I promise this'll be my last use of stats for a while) say the average town guard has a Perception of 50%, this thief (with Stealth 98%) is likely to evade him over 80% of the time... so about 4 rolls out of 5 will go in his favour. He gets up to 101% Stealth and sneaking past the same guards his success rate drops to under 60% so about 3 rolls out of 5 go in his favour.

To be honest, looking at what I've written I don't think many players will spot that kind of difference given that these rolls are likely to be spread apart and hardly ever given a chance for comparison...

Perhaps if there were two guys in the group with the same skill and one was 98% and the other was at 101% and the lower skill guy kept out-performing the higher skilled guy (when they are opposing guards say)...

Yeah, you may be right it probably won't be that obvious in play.